Academia.eduAcademia.edu

146-P

2013, Human Immunology

Aim: The Nordiag Arrow is an automated genomic DNA and RNA extraction system from virtually any source. Using paramagnetic bead technology, the Nordiag Arrow extraction system processes 1-12 samples in just 50 minutes. We have compared quality and quantity of the DNA extracted from buccal swab between the Nordiag Arrow and a leading competitor system. Methods: To test the hypothesis that the Nordiag Arrow system is comprable or exceeds a leading competitor system, DNA from 10 buccal swabs was extracted according to the procedures. The genetic material was checked with NanoDrop for DNA quality and quantity. Some samples were tested for Luminex SSO HLA typing. Results: The quantity of DNA extracted with the Arrow (0.0146 ± 0.008lg/lL) was on average 50% higher than that obtained from a competitor system (0.0070 ± 0.003lg/lL). The purity of the genomic material extracted with the Arrow (ratio:1.839 ± 0.134) was superior to that of the competing system (ratio:2.368 ± 0.463).[figure1]Some of the DNA was aslo tested with Luminex SSO Class I and II typing to very that amplifiable DNA was obtained. Conclusions: The Nordiag Arrow system provides an efficient and reliable automated way of extracting up to 12 samples at the same time. The quality and quantity of DNA extracted has been tested with Luminex based SSO HLA typing and gave robust amplifications and successful hybridizations. The system is user friendly and has a very low maintenance schedule. In our laboratory, we currently use the Nordiag Arrow system for DNA extractions from blood or swabs for both SSP-and SSO-based tissue typing. Validation of cell isolations for CDC crossamtching and chimerism minitoring is in progress using the Nordiag Arrow.

150 145-P Abstracts / Human Immunology 74 (2013) 51–173 USE OF THE AUTOMATED NORDIAG ARROW SYSTEM FOR DNA EXTRACTION FROM BUCCAL SWABS. Massimo Mangiola, Sese Doreen, Chatenay-Lapointe, Fronçois, Young Te Carolyn. Special Services, Rhode Island Blood Services, Providence, RI, USA. Aim: The Nordiag Arrow is an automated genomic DNA and RNA extraction system from virtually any source. Using paramagnetic bead technology, the Nordiag Arrow extraction system processes 1-12 samples in just 50 minutes. We have compared quality and quantity of the DNA extracted from buccal swab between the Nordiag Arrow and a leading competitor system. Methods: To test the hypothesis that the Nordiag Arrow system is comprable or exceeds a leading competitor system, DNA from 10 buccal swabs was extracted according to the procedures. The genetic material was checked with NanoDrop for DNA quality and quantity. Some samples were tested for Luminex SSO HLA typing. Results: The quantity of DNA extracted with the Arrow (0.0146 ± 0.008lg/lL) was on average 50% higher than that obtained from a competitor system (0.0070 ± 0.003lg/lL). The purity of the genomic material extracted with the Arrow (ratio:1.839 ± 0.134) was superior to that of the competing system (ratio:2.368 ± 0.463).[figure1]Some of the DNA was aslo tested with Luminex SSO Class I and II typing to very that amplifiable DNA was obtained. Conclusions: The Nordiag Arrow system provides an efficient and reliable automated way of extracting up to 12 samples at the same time. The quality and quantity of DNA extracted has been tested with Luminex based SSO HLA typing and gave robust amplifications and successful hybridizations. The system is user friendly and has a very low maintenance schedule. In our laboratory, we currently use the Nordiag Arrow system for DNA extractions from blood or swabs for both SSP- and SSO-based tissue typing. Validation of cell isolations for CDC crossamtching and chimerism minitoring is in progress using the Nordiag Arrow. 146-P A COMPARISON OF LOW RESOLUTION TYPING BY LUMINEX AND SEQUENCE SPECIFIC PRIMERS. Mahendra N. Mishra, Vandana Lal. Transplant Immunology, Dr Lal Path Labs Pvt. Ltd. National Reference Laboratory, New Delhi, Delhi, India. Aim: To compare the results of low resolution typing by sequence specific primers and sequence specific Oligonucleotide probes on Luminex platform. Methods: Prior to switching over to Luminex we performed initially low resolution HLA typing for thirty samples for ABDR antigens. We further validated HLA typing results on Luminex platform with two-third volumes of reagents. Kits from CPC Diagnostics (USA) and Innotrain (Germany) were used for SSOP and SSP typings respectively. We subsequently typed another twenty samples by both methods. Any addtional discreapancies encountered on typing over next two months shall also be presented. Results: The results were concordant for all antigens at the A locus. One antigen was not identified at the B locus on typing by Luminex. Three typing results were discordant for DRB1 locus. There were no ambiguities in Class I typing on Luminex platform whereas six samples gave ambiguous results at B locus by SSP. We got confounding results by on Luminex platform for a sample of cord blood with maternal chimerism and also for DR typing of three samples. Conclusions: SSOP typing gave fewer ambiguities for class I typing. For class II typing specially in cases of cord blood with maternal contamination we prefer SSP which gave clear results.